42 ms·

> China's government could use TikTok to control software on millions of devices and drive narratives to divide Americans Obviously other countries should ban

by piskov 3y ago

> China's government could use TikTok to control software on millions of devices and drive narratives to divide Americans Obviously other countries should ban US services as US government could (huh, “could”) use them to control software on millions of devices and drive narratives to divide %nation placeholder%? :-) Jeez the level of hypocrisy.

throwaway2990 3y ago
Except tiktok is owned by the CCP while Facebook Twitter etc is not owned by the US government.
- piskov 3y ago
  If only there were other means to achieve government goals besides the contractual “ownership” — see Twitter files as an example.
- thiagoharry 3y ago
  The distinction is irrelevant if the government branches have power to use Facebook and Twitter data as they wish. Or if these companies are near monopolies, which gives them great powers comparable with a government.
  - brucethemoose2 3y ago
    > to use Facebook and Twitter data as they wish Data collection is the issue politicians are presenting, but I think the actual worry is in the other direction: the influence the Chinese govt can have over the US population through algorithmic and explicit feed changes.
paxys 3y ago
Are you under the impression that other countries don't ban US services for exactly this reason?
- piskov 3y ago
  And how are they labeled for that by US? :-) You don’t understand, it’s different (c).
  - flappyeagle 3y ago
    Adversaries. Goes both ways.
empath-nirvana 3y ago
China does ban US services for exactly this reason. Principles that work in a free society work within and between free societies. They don't work on an international scale between nations that are opposed to each other, geopolitically, the incentives are all wrong. Leaving morals and ideology aside, simply strategically, Russia, China and the US are all wise to distrust each other and put limits on how each other's corporations can act within their boundaries. It's not the same situation between allies. Like, sure the US can use facebook to mess with Germany or the UK politically, but their incentives aren't to destabilize their allies.
- piskov 3y ago
  > but their incentives aren't to destabilize their allies Why not? Take that “green” politics for example that lead Germany to close a lot of atomic plants and, now, basically, at mercy of US gas (which production surged 80%, if I’m not mistaken) And then US subsidies to move production to US so that some VW plant is cheaper in US than in Germany
- kelnos 3y ago
  I think it's fine for an otherwise-free society to decide that another country's government poses a threat to free societies elsewhere, and then do things like ban foreign investment and exports into the problematic country and its companies. But not allowing their own citizens to access content produced in that problematic country smacks of Soviet-style cold war isolation. Or, hell, the Chinese government's block on any outside news or media it doesn't agree with. Strategically, if the US (and others) want to remain free, democratic societies, doing things like banning TikTok is a step in the wrong direction.
  - empath-nirvana 3y ago
    > But not allowing their own citizens to access content produced in that problematic country smacks of Soviet-style cold war isolation. Nobody is talking about that, though. Almost none of the content on Tik-Tok is produced in China. They're just talking about banning _the corporation_ from operating in the united states.
acumenical 3y ago
It is not the same. The US government does not partially own Instagram or Twitter, and I've never seen pro-US narratives driven on either platform. I usually see the opposite if anything.
- piskov 3y ago
  To be pro-US (meaning something that benefits US government) doesn’t mean it is plain “pro-US” content as in mentioning US at all.
- empath-nirvana 3y ago
  US control over tech companies is a bit subtler than that and mostly manifests in certain people going through a revolving door between the executive suite in tech companies and some job in the military-industrial complex, as well as lucrative government contracts for the companies (look at how the deal was done for cloud services for the Pentagon). It's _extremely_ common for people with NSA or similar experience to have very senior positions at US tech companies, and there's a reason for that. It's nothing formal, it's more that having friendly people on both sides of the fence is mutually beneficial for the government and for those companies.
nrb 3y ago
Does the US have a great firewall? Is it even in the same universe of information control as CCP? “This other government is provably controlling information flow and punishing thoughtcrime” is plenty of justification to be suspicious of China’s motives in a way that doesn’t feel blatantly hypocritical to me given that we are on the receiving end of similar suspicion by our allies and enemies.

by piskov 3y ago

throwaway2990 3y ago

Except tiktok is owned by the CCP while Facebook Twitter etc is not owned by the US government.

piskov 3y ago
If only there were other means to achieve government goals besides the contractual “ownership” — see Twitter files as an example.
thiagoharry 3y ago
The distinction is irrelevant if the government branches have power to use Facebook and Twitter data as they wish. Or if these companies are near monopolies, which gives them great powers comparable with a government.
- brucethemoose2 3y ago
  > to use Facebook and Twitter data as they wish Data collection is the issue politicians are presenting, but I think the actual worry is in the other direction: the influence the Chinese govt can have over the US population through algorithmic and explicit feed changes.

paxys 3y ago

Are you under the impression that other countries don't ban US services for exactly this reason?

piskov 3y ago
And how are they labeled for that by US? :-) You don’t understand, it’s different (c).
- flappyeagle 3y ago
  Adversaries. Goes both ways.

empath-nirvana 3y ago

China does ban US services for exactly this reason. Principles that work in a free society work within and between free societies. They don't work on an international scale between nations that are opposed to each other, geopolitically, the incentives are all wrong. Leaving morals and ideology aside, simply strategically, Russia, China and the US are all wise to distrust each other and put limits on how each other's corporations can act within their boundaries. It's not the same situation between allies. Like, sure the US can use facebook to mess with Germany or the UK politically, but their incentives aren't to destabilize their allies.

piskov 3y ago
> but their incentives aren't to destabilize their allies Why not? Take that “green” politics for example that lead Germany to close a lot of atomic plants and, now, basically, at mercy of US gas (which production surged 80%, if I’m not mistaken) And then US subsidies to move production to US so that some VW plant is cheaper in US than in Germany
kelnos 3y ago
I think it's fine for an otherwise-free society to decide that another country's government poses a threat to free societies elsewhere, and then do things like ban foreign investment and exports into the problematic country and its companies. But not allowing their own citizens to access content produced in that problematic country smacks of Soviet-style cold war isolation. Or, hell, the Chinese government's block on any outside news or media it doesn't agree with. Strategically, if the US (and others) want to remain free, democratic societies, doing things like banning TikTok is a step in the wrong direction.
- empath-nirvana 3y ago
  > But not allowing their own citizens to access content produced in that problematic country smacks of Soviet-style cold war isolation. Nobody is talking about that, though. Almost none of the content on Tik-Tok is produced in China. They're just talking about banning _the corporation_ from operating in the united states.

acumenical 3y ago

It is not the same. The US government does not partially own Instagram or Twitter, and I've never seen pro-US narratives driven on either platform. I usually see the opposite if anything.

piskov 3y ago
To be pro-US (meaning something that benefits US government) doesn’t mean it is plain “pro-US” content as in mentioning US at all.
empath-nirvana 3y ago
US control over tech companies is a bit subtler than that and mostly manifests in certain people going through a revolving door between the executive suite in tech companies and some job in the military-industrial complex, as well as lucrative government contracts for the companies (look at how the deal was done for cloud services for the Pentagon). It's _extremely_ common for people with NSA or similar experience to have very senior positions at US tech companies, and there's a reason for that. It's nothing formal, it's more that having friendly people on both sides of the fence is mutually beneficial for the government and for those companies.

nrb 3y ago

Does the US have a great firewall? Is it even in the same universe of information control as CCP? “This other government is provably controlling information flow and punishing thoughtcrime” is plenty of justification to be suspicious of China’s motives in a way that doesn’t feel blatantly hypocritical to me given that we are on the receiving end of similar suspicion by our allies and enemies.